Again, here is another question that my economics teacher wants his class to think about during spring break...
2007-03-12 16:30:11 · 7 answers · asked by Confused Student 2 in Social Science ➔ Economics
By positive reinforcement and ability for them to let their children learn about money.
2007-03-12 16:33:35 · answer #1 · answered by Santa Barbara 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Ok, so everyone has said that patents incentivate innovation, but since this is a classroom debate, I want to express some reasons why patents might not be that good.
1. There is no empirical, econometric evidence that suggests that more patents mean more innovation.
2. A quote by economist Machlup:
"If we did not have a patent system, it would be irresponsible, on the basis of our present knowledge of its economic consequences, to recommend instituting one. But since we have had a patent system for a long time, it would be
irresponsible, on the basis of our present knowledge, to recommend abolishing it."
F. Machlup,
An Economic Review of the Patent System,
[A commissioned report for the]
Study of the Subcommittee on Patents Trademarks and Copyrights,
Committee on the Judiciary,
United States Senate, 1958.
Notice that this quote is from 1958, so the debate on whether patents are good has been going on since then, and has advanced little.
3. Patents in itself are not the problem, rather, the problem is the way they work. It is naive to think that one single patent system works equally for every sector of the economy. In sectors where innovation requires old patented inventions, patents can actually stop innovati0n completely. This is true in vertically integrated, sectors with economies of scale such as telecom and biotech.
This is a little different point of view that is widely accepted by many reknown economists. I would love to have a debate and defend this position!
2007-03-12 23:42:55 · answer #2 · answered by danteslives 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Patent is registered and owned by the innovator or inventor.
It gives the sole right to the owner to reproduce its goods.
Without having it patented, then many crooks will take advantage on someones effort by copying and sell to the market.
The patent protects inventor and encourage the innovator/inventor to create more new products /innovation.
Others will also follow to study and be creative to come up with their new innovations. Meaning more innovations for the best of the people in the world.
2007-03-12 16:46:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
By permitting innovators to monopolize the profits of their often expensive and risky innovations, thereby providing incentive to innovate.
It is assumed that such innovations, including monopoly profits, benefit society in the long run, which is usually why patents and copyright have expiration dates.
There is however a fine distinction between patent protection and rent-seeking - non-market activity undertaken to protect an otherwise uncompetitive product or process, hence the question posed by the teacher.
A pertinent example is that of drug companies refusing to supply (AIDS related) drugs to poor regions in Africa that could otherwise be produced at a fraction of the asking price, potentially saving thousands of lives. The question is: are the companies simply factoring sunk innovation and development costs into their asking price, or exploiting their monopoly power (as granted by patent right) to sustain exhorbitant profits by restricting supply?
2007-03-12 16:52:03 · answer #4 · answered by Jeremy 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For someone to be creative enough to bring innovative products or services a great incentive is the ability to make money of it. Great innovation usually takes a lot of effort and it should be remunerated appropriately. Patents give the innovator the security that at least for a period of time it will not be copied, therefore allowing for planning and investing in making the product or service available without the risk of being copied unless he/she gets paid for allowing the copy in the market.
2007-03-12 16:46:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Lets say there weren't any patents. And I had a great idea, i instituted it and made some money, within the week 50 other companies instituted the MY idea, and absorbed all the profit that was seemingly mine.. if only MY idea stayed MINE.
If no one ever profits on their ideas why have any.. even better... why institute them? Why be innovative if you can't keep your idea and cash in on it?
2007-03-12 17:18:52 · answer #6 · answered by Max Power 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
give your children the desire to be creative and learn ecomonic-financial patterns. us what they like against them-ok-a little had. Find what they like-baseball-teach reading, math-Ave....You may have to learn what they like. Get them to teach you
2007-03-12 16:40:38 · answer #7 · answered by RayM 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋